On earth, not heaven.
On earth, not heaven.
On earth, not heaven.
Earthly kingdoms are not heavenly kingdoms as IP tries to blend them together as one and the same.
ECT The Rebellion that Desolates
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
- Status
Earthly kingdoms are not heavenly kingdoms as IP tries to blend them together as one and the same.
Interplanner
Well-known member
The man of sin / AC / son of perdition / leader of the rebellion was the final act of a rancid Judaism. That was in Jerusalem, Judea. Coincidentally Christ stop sacrifices (the value of them) at the same time by being cut off, Dan 9:24. The worship system on earth, blind to Christ, kept on operating for a while, after Christ's sacrifice. The leader of the rebellion also (de facto) stopped the system in the late 60s to preserve food during the confined part of the siege.
The sooner you get up to speed on the history of what happened there, the better for everybody.
Any group built on Chafer's bizarre proposition is going to repeat such flaws all down the line.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
You made that up. Why?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Reiteration.
Interplanner
Well-known member
To clarify against Tam's last line:
I don't blend them, I'm saying the eternal covenant and true faith in Christ is said by the NT to have existed before the Law/old covenant came along. The idea that there is a 2nd program replacing that was first of all in IT Judaism, in which Paul was raised (Gal 3:17), and more recently in Chafer's concoction called 2P2P or D'ism. D'ism is a way of just barely acknowledging that Christ is a savior, while still expecting everything IT Judaism expected to happen, as did the 'crowd' in Jn 12:34 and the upper classes of Jerusalem Judaism during the 1st century, who did not wish to confront Rome, and despised the Galileans who tried.
D'ism will use the expression 'personal savior' which they believe clears up the matter.
I don't blend them, I'm saying the eternal covenant and true faith in Christ is said by the NT to have existed before the Law/old covenant came along. The idea that there is a 2nd program replacing that was first of all in IT Judaism, in which Paul was raised (Gal 3:17), and more recently in Chafer's concoction called 2P2P or D'ism. D'ism is a way of just barely acknowledging that Christ is a savior, while still expecting everything IT Judaism expected to happen, as did the 'crowd' in Jn 12:34 and the upper classes of Jerusalem Judaism during the 1st century, who did not wish to confront Rome, and despised the Galileans who tried.
D'ism will use the expression 'personal savior' which they believe clears up the matter.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
All made up.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Rererereiteration....
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Will IP ever address these scriptures?
Interplanner
Well-known member
The Mt24A passage is not futurist. Neither is its earlier parallel Mk 13. Those passages are about 1st century Judea. Check all the details for that. At Mt24:29, it goes future and worldwide, and is expected, originally, to be right after the horrible time in Judea.
However, an allowance is made that the final day of worldwide judgement may be later, and we know it was.
The future worldwide day of judgement has no Judean detail to it; it would make no sense to.
The expression AofD started as the rebellion that desolates in Dan 8:13, a rebellion that would take place during the 4th kingdom that overran Israel, mentioned later in ch 8 and 9.
Christ was speaking of a person. Let the reader understand that. It would not be an image placed by an outside party. it would the the noxious actions of the rebellion and its leader; he would be found setting up in the temple and would ruin the country. There are events in the Great Revolt of 66-72 that follow this close enough.
Luke (Paul's) was written last, latest. When he comes close to this, it is no longer about watching for a person, but watching out for the city to be encircled. The Romans did encircle of course as part of their siege works, and this is certainly what is meant in 19:43, which passage is full of expressions from the first destruction of Jerusalem, but updated with Roman military vocabulary, making it unmistakable. However, we should note that Festus sought to protectively encircle Jerusalem even before that, but died during the constsruction and it was stopped and used against the city, once the zealot rebellion had overrun it. Festus, Agrippa and Bernice were interested in preserving the city as members of Judaism, and tried to stop the zealots.
There is also an account (in Josephus' JEWISH WAR) of Bernice making a direct appeal to a particularly horrible Roman figure, Florus, because he was agitating the rebellious zealots and trying to get them to fight.
So I think Festus effort to protect the city is signal enough for Christians to leave the city. Some stayed and were miraculously able to escape when the surrounding by Roman siege was interrupted a couple years later.
But Christ's remarks about how the zealots/Judaizers would ruin the city are not directed at Roman admins; they are all directed at the zealots; 'leistes' in Lk 19:46 is not a common thief; it is a terrorist, an insurgent. Part of this was to show in Luke-Acts that Paul was not part of any such rebellion at all.
Many, many passages in Paul refer to the 2nd coming in judgement being right round the corner. I don't know when 2 Peter was written but it appears to deal with this difficulty ('where is the coming?' 'some things in Paul's letters are hard to understand'). Once 72 went by and the world continued on, only the basic instruction to keep proclaiming Christ as Lord to all men, and his eventual return in judgement is clear.
However, an allowance is made that the final day of worldwide judgement may be later, and we know it was.
The future worldwide day of judgement has no Judean detail to it; it would make no sense to.
The expression AofD started as the rebellion that desolates in Dan 8:13, a rebellion that would take place during the 4th kingdom that overran Israel, mentioned later in ch 8 and 9.
Christ was speaking of a person. Let the reader understand that. It would not be an image placed by an outside party. it would the the noxious actions of the rebellion and its leader; he would be found setting up in the temple and would ruin the country. There are events in the Great Revolt of 66-72 that follow this close enough.
Luke (Paul's) was written last, latest. When he comes close to this, it is no longer about watching for a person, but watching out for the city to be encircled. The Romans did encircle of course as part of their siege works, and this is certainly what is meant in 19:43, which passage is full of expressions from the first destruction of Jerusalem, but updated with Roman military vocabulary, making it unmistakable. However, we should note that Festus sought to protectively encircle Jerusalem even before that, but died during the constsruction and it was stopped and used against the city, once the zealot rebellion had overrun it. Festus, Agrippa and Bernice were interested in preserving the city as members of Judaism, and tried to stop the zealots.
There is also an account (in Josephus' JEWISH WAR) of Bernice making a direct appeal to a particularly horrible Roman figure, Florus, because he was agitating the rebellious zealots and trying to get them to fight.
So I think Festus effort to protect the city is signal enough for Christians to leave the city. Some stayed and were miraculously able to escape when the surrounding by Roman siege was interrupted a couple years later.
But Christ's remarks about how the zealots/Judaizers would ruin the city are not directed at Roman admins; they are all directed at the zealots; 'leistes' in Lk 19:46 is not a common thief; it is a terrorist, an insurgent. Part of this was to show in Luke-Acts that Paul was not part of any such rebellion at all.
Many, many passages in Paul refer to the 2nd coming in judgement being right round the corner. I don't know when 2 Peter was written but it appears to deal with this difficulty ('where is the coming?' 'some things in Paul's letters are hard to understand'). Once 72 went by and the world continued on, only the basic instruction to keep proclaiming Christ as Lord to all men, and his eventual return in judgement is clear.
Interplanner
Well-known member
So you send cartoons of 'play' buttons instead of scriptures. Wow they must really be something. STP is not allowed to tell RD, who is not allowed to print them out for me. Wow.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
Interplanner
Well-known member
The authors of God's word are not in two minds with two peoples and two programs and nonsense like that all day long even their sleep.
the enthronement David foresaw was the resurection. There is no where else the grammar goes with 'seeing this.' In Greek, this has a case and it applies to the thing that fits that case in the diagramming of the sentence. And that's why Ps 2 is quoted as enthronement accomplished. there is no splitting head ache like you give people trying to preserve Chafer's two plans.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Show me the top secret scriptures, or is that just it--they are top secret?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Nope, IP did not address any of the scriptures, just more vain imaginations.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
200% made up.
The desolation is OF THE TEMPLE. It is made desolate to make place for the abomination, an image.
What is wrong with you?
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Right Divider
Body part
It's not a "play button" dork.
- Status